Another note on the dependence of suburbs on cities that Eric Miller noted below: most suburbs cannot exist economically separate from cities, since infrastructure and.... Another note on the dependence of suburbs on cities that Eric Miller noted below: most suburbs cannot exist economically separate from cities, since infrastructure and services derive their funding primarily from property taxes. Suburbs, with their low densities and large properties, require more infrastructure for fewer people; they are generally undertaxed (suburbanites being notorious anti-taxers), with their infrastructure and services (police, fire, health, library, etc) most often quite heavily subsidized by their associated urban centers.

A simple illustration: on my high-rent urban block, one hundred feet of water or sewer pipe serves about 80 people. On a suburban street, that same hundred feet of pipe serves maybe 8. Same pipe, fewer people, and with property values (and usually tax rates) lower in the 'burbs, well, where's the money come from for those pipes? (And the feeder pipes leading out thereb?)

Likewise, with bedroom suburbs offering no good jobs, and not having enough density to support mass transit, you end up with two-, three-, or even four-car families who drive everywehre, requiring roads and freeways and parking (8 spaces per car, anywhere, on the average, if you add up all the partly-used spaces). The county builds most roads, develops most water, etc, and the state builds the freeways--all with money derived from efficient concentrations of people and activity and tax revenue in cities.

In other words, the real welfare queens are all those soccer moms chaffeuring their kids around in minivans on the freeways...suburbs are a drain on cities, and a mandated subsidy which our current development patterns force city residents--often working-class people paying property taxes through their landlords--to shell out for, directly and through the underfunding of urban services.